Author
Topic: The D.I.E.G.O. System (Read 39 times)

I've been developing the D.I.E.G.O. system of approaching internet arguments for the past five years, ever since I first started my fruitful career of pissing people off online. Recently, the website Neville introduced me to called Quora has given me a great deal of valuable insight into how to argue with the internet folk. I've come to realize how much time I waste doing this, and in 2018 I'm going to try to tone down my online personality. However, I would be remiss if I didn't save this system for posterity (as it can actually be quite useful).

Observe.

D- Demonstrate ignorance. This may seem counter-intuitive, but the fastest way to get your opponent on the ropes is to demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the subject at hand, and insult their intelligence while you're at it. However, it is important that you do this in a way that you can later walk back. Start things off with a comment that can be interpreted in two ways-- one passive, one offensive; one well-informed, one ignorant. If there's anything I know about the internet, it's that people insist on using the latter interpretation. They want to believe that they're arguing with a cretin, so let them. This will cause them to lower their defenses and resort to emotional appeals and personal attacks.

I- Imply intelligence. Your opponent has now severely underestimated you. It's time to hit back. Your next few comments will gradually begin to illustrate that you're here for serious, reasoned debate-- not lazy ad-hominem attacks. Shocked by this sudden reversal, the opponent attempts to change course, but it's too late. They've come out with guns blazing, making you look sane and rational in comparison. Bonus points if you got them to take offense at something initially, only to flip it on its head later by telling them they misinterpreted your comment and that they should "practice reading comprehension."

E- Establish dominance. As you reveal that you're a more formidable opponent than anyone expected, you need to establish your dominance. Question your opponent's motives-- are they actually here for serious discourse, or do they just want to spend their time making childish accusations and "deliberately misinterpreting" your comments? Now is a good time to start correcting their spelling and grammar mistakes, or simply saying you're not sure how to respond (if their mistakes are that egregious). This will drive them absolutely nuts. By this point, you've got an audience of people reading through your comments, and they're wholly on your side. Start a side conversation with one of them about how unreasonable your opponent is. Their self-esteem will melt away like a stick of butter in a microwave.

G- Get personal.(This doesn't mean what you think it means.) If you've completed the first three steps correctly, your adversary now feels increasingly isolated and weak. By maintaining a level-headed and calm demeanor, you've managed to turn public opinion against them. Now it's time to establish your own personhood-- making them see you as another human being rather than just some text on a screen. Investigate your opponent a bit. Find out why they believe the things they believe. Ask them some questions, and have them clarify some statements. As you get to know them, find some common ground. This will gradually allow them to save face. Of course, some people will rage-quit the conversation somewhere between steps two and three, but this step is important for the rehabilitation phase.

O- Open your arms. The point of this is always to change minds. Now, we don't always get to this stage, and it's sometimes satisfactory to just change the minds of the people observing the debate, but it's always good to welcome your adversary to the other side of the aisle. If all has gone as planned, you've now successfully manipulated them into becoming much more accepting of whatever loony worldview you're pushing. In the future, when people in your camp make outrageous or insulting statements that reflect badly on you, this person will remember the humiliation they suffered at your hands, and will be much more careful in engaging them. They will be respectful and open-minded. What a concept!

Example:

D: "All restrictions on free speech amount to authoritarianism. I would never want to live in a country where I couldn't fly a swastika flag from my house."I: "Did you actually think I was a neo-Nazi? My point, you dip, is that if you give the government the power to take down flags you don't like, you're also setting the precedent for them to take down flags you do like. When it comes to government, any power you give to your allies now is a power you give to your enemies later. For example, if you wanted Obama to censor FOX News for reporting bald-faced lies, can you imagine how much that precedent would come around to bite you in the ass with this current administration? I wouldn't want the government taking down my gay pride flag, so I don't want to help it get started down that slippery slope."E: "It's not my fault that you misinterpreted my comment. If you're always willing to assume the worst of your opponents, you'll leave yourself open to these kinds of embarrassing misunderstandings."G: "The funny thing here is that we don't actually disagree that much-- I love [insert TV show] and [insert politician] too. We just got started out on the wrong foot. But you really should think more about the precedents being set by the kinds of laws you're proposing."O: "Hey, I enjoyed this discussion too. Remember, there's always room for you in the camp of libertarian centrists!"